坚持的两个范例。

David J Pittenger
{"title":"坚持的两个范例。","authors":"David J Pittenger","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Persistence refers to the extent to which an individual pursues reinforcement that is no longer available. The most common generalization regarding persistence is the partial reinforcement extinction effect, which states that partial, rather than continuous, reinforcement creates the greatest level of persistence. Although the partial reinforcement effect is the most common effect in humans, exceptions exist, namely the generalized and the reversed partial reinforcement effect. Since the 1930s, psychologists have used 2 general paradigms for studying persistence in humans: the experimental paradigm and the cognitive/individual differences paradigm. For the experimental paradigm, the primary independent variable is the schedule of reinforcement used to establish the behavior prior to the removal of reinforcement. Explanations of persistence from the experimental perspective depend on associative principles derived from various theories of learning. By contrast, the cognitive/individual differences paradigm treats persistence as a function of trait variables, including locus of control and self-esteem, or general cognitive processes, such as cognitive dissonance or social cognition. In this article, the author reviews the status of the current literature on persistence and recommends directions for future research.</p>","PeriodicalId":77145,"journal":{"name":"Genetic, social, and general psychology monographs","volume":"128 3","pages":"237-68"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The two paradigms of persistence.\",\"authors\":\"David J Pittenger\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Persistence refers to the extent to which an individual pursues reinforcement that is no longer available. The most common generalization regarding persistence is the partial reinforcement extinction effect, which states that partial, rather than continuous, reinforcement creates the greatest level of persistence. Although the partial reinforcement effect is the most common effect in humans, exceptions exist, namely the generalized and the reversed partial reinforcement effect. Since the 1930s, psychologists have used 2 general paradigms for studying persistence in humans: the experimental paradigm and the cognitive/individual differences paradigm. For the experimental paradigm, the primary independent variable is the schedule of reinforcement used to establish the behavior prior to the removal of reinforcement. Explanations of persistence from the experimental perspective depend on associative principles derived from various theories of learning. By contrast, the cognitive/individual differences paradigm treats persistence as a function of trait variables, including locus of control and self-esteem, or general cognitive processes, such as cognitive dissonance or social cognition. In this article, the author reviews the status of the current literature on persistence and recommends directions for future research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":77145,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Genetic, social, and general psychology monographs\",\"volume\":\"128 3\",\"pages\":\"237-68\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Genetic, social, and general psychology monographs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Genetic, social, and general psychology monographs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

持久性是指个体追求不再可用的强化的程度。关于持久性,最常见的概括是部分强化消退效应,即部分强化而不是持续强化创造了最大程度的持久性。虽然部分强化效应是人类最常见的效应,但也存在例外,即广义部分强化效应和反向部分强化效应。自20世纪30年代以来,心理学家使用了两种通用范式来研究人类的持久性:实验范式和认知/个体差异范式。在实验范式中,主要的自变量是用于在移除强化之前建立行为的强化时间表。从实验的角度解释持久性依赖于从各种学习理论中衍生出来的联想原理。相比之下,认知/个体差异范式将持久性视为特征变量(包括控制点和自尊)或一般认知过程(如认知失调或社会认知)的函数。本文对持久性的研究现状进行了综述,并对今后的研究方向进行了展望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The two paradigms of persistence.

Persistence refers to the extent to which an individual pursues reinforcement that is no longer available. The most common generalization regarding persistence is the partial reinforcement extinction effect, which states that partial, rather than continuous, reinforcement creates the greatest level of persistence. Although the partial reinforcement effect is the most common effect in humans, exceptions exist, namely the generalized and the reversed partial reinforcement effect. Since the 1930s, psychologists have used 2 general paradigms for studying persistence in humans: the experimental paradigm and the cognitive/individual differences paradigm. For the experimental paradigm, the primary independent variable is the schedule of reinforcement used to establish the behavior prior to the removal of reinforcement. Explanations of persistence from the experimental perspective depend on associative principles derived from various theories of learning. By contrast, the cognitive/individual differences paradigm treats persistence as a function of trait variables, including locus of control and self-esteem, or general cognitive processes, such as cognitive dissonance or social cognition. In this article, the author reviews the status of the current literature on persistence and recommends directions for future research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Psychologists versus psychologists: evaluating the claims of psychologists who publicly criticize their profession. Creativity, intelligence, and personality: a critical review of the scattered literature. Using epistemic ratios to evaluate hypotheses: an imprecision penalty for imprecise hypotheses. Measuring the value of nonwage employee benefits: building a model of the relation between benefit satisfaction and value. The cognition of deception: the role of executive processes in producing lies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1